£ 

73S 
M6- 


UC-NRLF 


$B    tl 


8 


Ut  — 

to 


THE  PURPOSE   OF    THE    NATION 


IN    THE    PRESENT    WAR 


. 


. 


THE  PURPOSE   OF    THE    NATION 
IN   THE    PRESENT    WAR 


AN    ESSAY    BY    WILLIAM    H.<  MILLS 


Read  before  the  Chit-Chat  Club 
San  Francisco,  July,  1898 


The  Murdock  Press 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  NATION  IN  THE 
PRESENT  WAR. 


In  entering  upon  an  important  enterprise  the  final  pur 
pose  of  the  individual  may  have  complete  definition,  because 
the  purpose  is  formed  and  controlled  by  an  individual  will. 
But  national  enterprise  is  the  result  of  compromise  between 
conflicting  opinion,  antagonistic  interests  and  the  contention 
of  elemental  forces.  The  purpose  of  a  nation  is  always 
deeper  and  broader  than  may  be  inferred  from  initial 
declaration,  because  it  cannot  contravene  the  Revolutionary 
force  which  gives  law  to  its  motives  and  direction  to  its 
development. 

The  leaders  of  the  Colonial  Rebellion,  which  resulted  in 
the  separation  of  the  British  colonies  in  America  from  their 
mother  country,  declared  that  the  armed  resistance  they 
were  about  to  begin  had  no  other  purpose  than  the  redress 
of  grievances.  But  the  grievances  of  which  they  com 
plained  could  find  perfect  redress  only  in  the  autonomy  of 
national  life.  The  abuses  were  offensive  to  the  aspirations 
of  a  liberty-loving  people.  The  protest  itself  was  an  evi 
dence  that  vassalage  to  the  mother  country  was  offensive  to 
the  inherent  aspiration  toward  independence  and  autonomy. 
However  much  disclaimed,  the  real  purpose  of  the  Colonial 
revolt  was  the  achievement  of  independence,  because  that 
end  alone  could  adequately  redress  the  grievances  of  which 
our  forefathers  complained. 


The  Saxon  genius  for  government  which  arises  out  of  the 
Saxon  love  of  independence  and  liberty  is  the  true  standard 
by  which  the  original  purpose  must  be  judged.  The  redress 
of  grievances  which  appeared  to  be  the  full  round  of  initial 
purpose  became  merely  an  incident  of  the  real  intention  on 
a  natural  line  of  development.  The  professed  purpose, 
which  in  the  incipient  stages  of  the  Revolution  was  made  to 
appear  paramount,  became  a  subordinate  incident  when  the 
inherent  forces  in  national  life  had  acquired  their  full  and 
natural  momentum. 

The  secession  of  the  slave  States  left  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  in  the  control  of  the  free  sections  of  the  country.  The 
resistance  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  doctrine  of 
secession  had  for  its  first  purpose  the  preservation  of  the 
Union  and  the  maintenance  of  its  territorial  and  political 
integrity,  evolving  naturally  and  inevitably  the  purpose  to 
extinguish  slavery,  the  one  paramount  cause  of  the  Rebel 
lion.  In  this,  as  in  the  former  instance,  the  initial  and 
professed  purpose,  which  was  paramount,  became  a  subor 
dinate  incident  to  the  extinguishment  of  slavery  and  the 
establishment  of  free  institutions  throughout  the  borders  of 
the  country. 

In  these  cases  we  have  historical  illustrations  of  the  fact 
that  the  real  purpose  of  a  nation  in  any  great  undertaking 
can  only  be  understood  by  observing  the  political  trend 
from  the  original  impetus  in  its  momentum  through  current 
events.  A  massive  rock  is  sent  rolling  down  a  declivity.  It 
is  idle  to  measure  the  few  paces  under  immediate  observa 
tion  and  entertain  the  hope  that  its  momentum  will  be 
arrested  short  of  the  point  where  gravity  is  compensated, 
at  the  very  extreme  of  the  inclined  plane  toward  which  it 
was  given  its  original  impetus. 


The  nation  is  engaged  in  a  war  with  Spain.  To  the 
superficial  observation  the  current  war  appears  to  be  an 
innovation  upon  our  whole  history.  Its  declaration  came 
to  the  thoughtless  as  a  surprise.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
the  variety  of  reasons  which  have  been  offered  to  place  it 
on  justifiable  grounds,  to  trace  the  fact  of  war  to  adequate 
causes,  and  to  give  interpretation  to  the  national  purpose. 

An  eminent  divine  of  our  city,  distinguished  for  careful 
conservatism  of  opinion  and  for  grace  and  elegance  of 
diction,  has  sought  to  render  the  meaning  of  the  war  by 
declaring: — 

1 '  The  question  is,  Shall  an  ancient  dynasty  perpetuate  its 
expiring  tyrannies  at  our  doors  ?  " 

A  distinguished  Jewish  Rabbi  has  said: — 
"  This  is  the  expiation  of  history  for  centuries  of  cruelty 
and  barbarism  practiced  by  an  Old  World  monarchy." 

Another  earnest  and  thoughtful  minister  has  declared 
that  — 

"By  this  war  the  responsibility  of  nations  concerning  the 
welfare  of  the  human  family  in  every  part  of  the  world 
receives  a  higher  interpretation,  and  the  pathway  of  national 
duty  takes  a  higher  plane." 

Farther  down  the  line  of  intellectual  and  moral  growth  we 
encounter  the  revengeful  interpretation  of  "  Remember  the 
Maine."  The  Governmental  authorities  have  offered  for 
popular  contemplation  the  suggestive  association  of  the 
destruction  of  the  Maine  by  printing  a  picture  of  the  ill- 
fated  battle-ship  upon  the  war  revenue  stamps. 

This  war  did  not  gather  on  the  national  horizon  in  a  day. 
It  was  not  the  result  of  events  transpiring  in  the  immediate 


past.  It  has  its  place  in  the  entire  historical  trend  of  the 
nation.  It  is  the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  national  life  and 
development.  Its  cause  may  be  traced  to  vicissitudes  in 
the  life  of  other  nations  reacting  upon  our  own.  It  is  an 
event  in  a  logical  sequence  of  events  which  have  transpired 
in  all  the  history  of  our  country.  It  has  given  premonition 
approach  for  more  than  a  century.  Its  approach  has 
been  guided  on  constantly  converging  lines  of  national  devel 
opment  throughout  the  world.  It  is  encountered  in  its  appro 
priate  time  and  at  its  appropriate  place.  It  has  come  to 
us  in  the  irresistible  logic  of  past  history  and  future 
progress. 

The  political  geography  of  the  world  has  resulted  from 
national  conflict.  War  has  been  waged  to  outline  national 
boundaries  and  to  maintain  national  jurisdiction  over  the 
territory  acquired.  The  topography  of  the  country  over 
which  national  jurisdiction  has  been  extended  has  played  an 
important  part  in  national  defense,  and,  therefore,  in  the 
determination  of  national  boundaries. 

But,  aside  from  the  military  or  strategic  value  which 
attaches  to  portions  of  adjacent  territory,  there  are  com 
mercial  considerations  influencing  the  desire  of  the  nation 
for  territorial  aggrandizement.  At  the  close  of  the  War 
for  Independence  the  United  States  had  no  territory  on  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  none  west  of  the  Mississippi.  The 
Atlantic  seacoast  had  its  southern  limit  at  the  mouth  of  St. 
Mary's  River.  Unity  of  commercial  interest,  which  urges 
and  enforces  political  annexation,  created  both  a  political 
and  commercial  necessity  for  the  acquisition  of  the  Missis 
sippi  Valley  and  the  outlet  of  that  great  artery  of  commerce 
to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  personal  ambitions  and  pecu 
niary  necessities  of  Napoleon  and  the  complicated  exigencies 


of  European  politics  had  withdrawn  the  attention  of  European 
powers  from  a  country  so  remote  as  our  own,  thus  affording 
a  fortuitous  opportunity  for  our  territorial  expansion  in  this 
direction. 

The  United  States,  in  1803,  acquired  the  province  of 
Louisiana  from  Napoleon,  and  by  this  wise  act  of  statesman 
ship  averted  a  war  for  its  acquisition.  By  this  purpose  the 
United  States  acquired  the  gulf  coast  line  between  the 
Sabine  and  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  River.  This 
acquisition  emphasized  the  commercial  and  political  neces 
sity  for  the  further  acquisition  of  East  and  West  Florida. 

The  diplomatic  relations  between  Spain  and  the  United 
States  began  in  1792,  during  the  administration  of  Presi 
dent  Washington  and  resulted  in  the  treaty  of  1795.  The 
leading  feature  of  the  treaty  related  to  the  responsibility  of 
Spain  for  the  conduct  of  the  Indians  within  the  territory 
claimed  and  owned  by  that  nation. 

These  treaty  obligations  were  not  observed,  and  an  equal 
disregard  was  shown  by  Spain  for  her  treaty  obligations 
relating  to  the  Gulf  piracy  practiced  by  the  Buccaneers  who 
found  shelter,  notably  in  the  harbor  of  Cardenas,  on  the 
northwest  coast  of  Cuba.  From  1793  to  1823  the  relations 
of  the  two  countries  was  strained  to  the  verge  of  war. 

The  citizens  of  the  United  States  had  sustained  injuries 
entitling  them  to  indemnity  in  the  amount  of  $5,000,000, 
and  the  purchase  price  for  East  and  West  Florida  was  paid 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  by  assuming  these  liabili 
ties.  Thus  the  purchase  price  of  the  Floridas  was  paid  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States. 

A  retrospect  of  these  events  with  the  map  of  the  country 
before  us  justifies  the  theory  that  contiguous  territory  is 
sometimes  indispensable  to  the  territorial  and  political 


integrity  of  a  nation.  The  commercial  and  industrial 
expansion  of  the  United  States  demanded  the  acquisition  of 
the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  Florida  peninsula;  and  the 
commercial  and  industrial  considerations  were  strongly 
reinforced  by  the  military  and  strategic  necessities  of  the 
situation.  The  reasons  which  were  deemed  sufficient  for 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas  were  equally 
applicable  to  the  Republic  of  Texas  and  prevailed  in  the 
annexation  of  that  Republic,  by  which  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  acquired  500,000  square  miles.  The 
same  commercial,  industrial,  and  political  considerations 
which  enforced  these  territorial  acquisitions,  became  in  their 
turn  applicable  to  the  territory  acquired  in  1848  by  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  comprising  600,000  square 
miles  and  embraced  within  the  States  of  California,  Nevada, 
Utah,  about  one  third  of  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico, 
and  portions  of  the  States  of  Colorado  and  Wyoming. 
Topographical  considerations,  however,  accounted  for  the 
Gadsden  purchase  of  50,000  square  miles  in  1853.  This 
purchase  had  reference  to  the  construction  of  lines  of  rail 
way  connecting  the  Gulf  and  Pacific  ports  on  American 
soil.  The  original  intention,  however,  of  the  negotiation 
was  the  acquirement  of  the  outlet  of  the  Colorado  River 
into  the  Gulf  of  California.  When  the  treaty  was  signed, 
it  was  the  prevalent  belief  that  this  intention  had  been  ful 
filled,  but  when  the  territory  described  in  the  treaty  was 
delineated  on  the  map,  it  was  discovered  that  the  Mexican 
diplomats  and  negotiators  had  used  their  superior  knowl 
edge  of  the  geography  of  the  territory  subject  to  negotia 
tion  to  excellent  advantage. 

The  fortuitous  circumstances  which  enabled  us  to  acquire 
the  province  of  Louisiana  without  the  expense  of  war  have 


already  been  referred  to,  but  we  acquired  the  Floridas  at 
the  narrow  hazard  of  conflict,  and  acquired  Texas  and  the 
Pacific  States  and  territories  as  the  actual  result  of  war. 

Up  to  this  point  in  our  history,  the  policy  underlying  each 
instance  of  territorial  acquisition  appears  to  have  run  on 
parallel  lines.  Each  of  these  acquisitions  related  to  con 
tiguous  territory  and  extended  by  natural  expansion  the 
national  domain.  The  desirability  of  these  acquisitions  was 
concurred  in  by  all  the  leading  statesmen  in  every  period 
of  our  history.  The  policy  of  territorial  expansion  was 
regarded  not  only  as  justifiable  but  indispensable  to  the 
territorial  and  political  integrity  of  the  country. 

The  acquisition  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  embracing 
31,000  square  miles,  is  an  event  of  yesterday.  It  follows  the 
precedent  of  annexing  non-contiguous  territory  established 
in  the  purchase  of  Alaska,  but  is  unprecedented  in  the 
feature  of  absorbing  distant  islands,  acquired  mainly  for 
their  strategic  value  and  future  possible  commercial  import 
ance.  By  this  latest  acquisition  we  have  annexed  territory 
within  the  tropics,  so  that  the  range  of  production  of  things 
useful  to  man  within  the  national  domain  embraces  every 
object  of  culture  in  all  latitudes  from  the  equator  to  the 
North  Pole.  This  last  acquisition  proceeds  upon  the 
defensible  theory  that  political  and  commercial  reasons  for 
territorial  incorporation  into  the  national  system  are  not 
limited  solely  to  continental  and  contiguous  territory. 

From  a  very  early  period,  however,  and  after  the  acquisi 
tion  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  entire  northern  coast 
of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  from  Cape  Sabine  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Rio  Grande,  the  Island  of  Cuba  had  been  regarded  by 
leading  statesmen  in  this  country  as  a  natural-geographical 
and  political  part  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 


From  the  earliest  period  in  our  history,  the  position  of 
Cuba,  commanding  as  it  did  the  commerce  of  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  liable  to  pass  from  the  possession  of  Spain  to 
the  hands  of  a  more  powerful  commercial  rival,  was  the 
subject  of  apprehension  in  the  minds  of  American  states 
men  and  a  prolific  source  of  irritation  and  annoyance,  as 
well  as  a  constant  menace  of  armed  conflict.  The  view 
that  Cuba  is  territorially  a  part  of  the  United  States;  that 
its  possession  by  a  foreign  power  is  inimical  to  our  interests 
and  a  menace  to  our  safety;  that  its  acquisition  by  the 
United  States  is  demanded  by  every  commercial  and  mili 
tary  consideration,  has  been  entertained  by  all  the  leading 
statesmen  in  every  period  of  our  history;  When  Great 
Britain  proposed  a  defensive  alliance  between  herself  and 
the  United  States  against  the  designs  of  the  Holy  Alliance 
concerning  the  restoration  of  Spanish  authority  in  America, 
by  which  the  United  States  would  have  been  forever 
debarred  from  acquiring  any  portion  of  the  Spanish  col 
onies  for  themselves,  the  subject  was  submitted  by  President 
Monroe  to  Thos.  Jefferson,  who  replied,  under  date  of 
October  24,  1823,  as  follows: — 

"  But  we  have  first  to  ask  ourselves  the  question,  Do  we 
wish  to  acquire  to  our  own  confederacy  any  one  or  more  of 
the  Spanish  provinces  ?  I  candidly  confess  that  I  have  ever 
looked  upon  Cuba  as  the  most  interesting  addition  which 
could  ever  be  made  to  our  system  of  States.  The  control 
which,  with  Florida  point,  this  island  would  give  us  over 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  countries  and  isthmus  border 
ing  upon  it,  as  well  as  all  those  whose  waters  flow  into  it, 
would  fill  up  the  measure  of  our  political  well  being." 

The  alliance  proposed  by  Great  Britain  in  this  instance 
was  opposed  by  Mr.  Adams,  Secretary  of  State.  He 


declared  that  we  should  make  our  declaration  independ 
ently  of  Great  Britain.  Accordingly,  on  December  2,  1823, 
the  message  of  President  Monroe  was  submitted  to 
Congress.  This  message,  which  embodies  the  historical 
Monroe  doctrine,  vouchsafes  no  assurance  to  the  world  that 
the  United  States  would  forego  the  acquisition  of  addi 
tional  territory  upon  this  continent  as  suggested  by  Great 
Britain.  It  was  a  simple  declaration  that  the  United  States 
would  not  look  with  indifference  upon  any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  European  governments  to  restore  the  authority  of 
Spain  over  her  lately  revolted  colonies,  and  a  further  pro 
test  against  extending  the  political  systems  of  Europe  to 
any  portion  of  the  American  continents,  coupled  with  the 
statement  that  the  extension  of  such  system  would  endanger 
our  peace  and  happiness. 

Mr.  Adams'  views  concerning  Cuba  were  expressed  at  a 
date  prior  to  the  expression  of  Mr.  Jefferson  already  quoted. 
In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Nelson,  dated  April  20,  1823,  and  prior 
to  the  receipt  of  the  proposition  by  President  Monroe  of 
the  proposed  defensive  alliance  with  Great  Britain,  Mr. 
Adams,  speaking  of  Porto  Rico  and  Cuba,  said: — 

"These  islands,  from  their  local  position,  are  natural 
appendages  of  the  North  American  continent,  and  one  of 
them  (Cuba),  almost  in  sight  of  our  shores,  from  a  multi 
tude  of  considerations  has  become  an  object  of  transcend- 
ant  importance  to  the  commercial  and  political  interests  of 
our  Union.  Its  commanding  position  with  reference  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  West  India  seas;  the  character  of 
its  population;  its  situation  midway  between  our  southern 
coast  and  the  Island  of  San  Domingo;  its  safe  and  capa 
cious  harbor  of  the  Havana,  fronting  a  long  line  of  our 
shores  destitute  of  the  same  advantage;  the  nature  of  its 


productions  and  of  its  wants,  furnishing  the  supplies  and 
needing  the  returns  of  a  commerce  immensely  profitable 
and  mutually  beneficial,  give  it  an  importance  in  the  sum 
of  our  national  interests  with  which  that  of  no  other  foreign 
territory  can  be  compared,  and  little  inferior  to  that  which 
binds  the  different  members  of  this  Union  together." 

At  this  date  Spain  was  at  war  with  France  and  had  made 
overtures  to  Great  Britain  for  assistance.  Apprehending 
the  danger  to  the  perpetuity  of  Spanish  authority  in  Cuba 
by  reason  of  an  alliance  with  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Adams 
voiced  a  note  of  warning.  He  declared  that  a  guarantee  of 
the  island  to  Spain  might  be  among  the  stipulations  of  an 
alliance  with  Great  Britain,  but  that  in  the  event  either  of  a 
threatened  attack  upon  the  island  by  France,  or  attempts 
on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba  to  assume  their 
independence,  the  temporary  occupation  of  Havana  by  the 
British  might  be  among  the  probable  expedients.  The 
danger  to  the  United  States  of  this  temporary  occupation 
was  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Adams,  as  follows: — 

"It  is  not  necessary  to  point  out  the  numerous  contin 
gencies  by  which  the  transition  from  a  temporary  and  a 
fiduciary  occupation  to  a  permanent  and  proprietary  posses 
sion  may  be  effected.  The  transfer  of  Cuba  to  Great 
Britain  would  be  an  event  unpropitious  to  the  interests  of 
this  Union." 

In  the  same  letter,  Mr.  Adams  declares  a  law  of  territorial 
integrity  and  gravity  so  clearly  and  forcibly  that  it  cannot  be 
omitted  He  said:— 

"  But  there  are  laws  of  political  as  well  as  of  physical 
gravitation;  and  if  an  apple,  severed  by  the  tempest  from  its 
native  tree,  cannot  choose  but  fall  to  the  ground,  Cuba, 
forcibly  disjointed  from  its  own  unnatural  connection  with 


Spain,  and  incapable  of  self-support,  can  gravitate  only 
toward  the  North  American  Union,  which,  by  the  same  law 
of  nature,  cannot  cast  her  off  from  its  bosom." 

This  declaration  of  the  existence  of  a  law  of  political  as 
well  as  physical  gravitation,  as  applied  to  Cuba,  permeates 
the  literature  of  American  diplomacy  in  all  periods  of  our  his 
tory.  But  Mr.  Adams  went  further  than  to  declare  merely 
a  law  of  political  gravitation,  and  said: — 

' '  In  looking  forward  to  the  probable  course  of  events  for 
the  short  period  of  half  a  century,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
resist  the  conviction  that  the  annexation  of  Cuba  to  our 
Federal  Republic  will  be  indispensable  to  the  continuance 
and  integrity  of  the  Union  itself." 

The  expressions  of  opinion  already  quoted  may  be  said  to 

belong  to  the  earliest  period  of  American  statesmanship.  They 

clearly  disclose  the  national  belief  that  Cuba  is  territorially 

a  part  of  the  Union;  that  its  acquisition  is  indispensable  to 

the  safety  of  the  country,  from  a  strategic  point  of  view  as 

well  as  highly  important  in   its  industrial  and  commercial 

aspect.     They  also  disclose  the  fact  that  to  the  minds  of 

these  statesmen  territorial  acquisition  in  defense  of  national 

integrity  is  both  expedient  and  right,  and  they  declare  in 

terms  that  while  the  relation  between  Cuba  and  the  United 

States  is  natural,  the  relation  between  Cuba  and  Spain  is 

forced   and   unnatural.     In    consonance  with  the  opinions 

already  quoted,  like  expressions  continue  in  a  straight  line 

down  the  course  of  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  country. 

Their  full  presentation  wonld  be  beyond  the  compass  of  this 

paper,   but  brief  extracts  are  indispensable  to  an  adequate 

understanding  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,   Secretary  of  State,  writing  to  Mr.  Van 
Ness,  October  2,  1829,  said: — 


"The  Government  has  always  looked  with  the  deepest 
interest  upon  the  fate  of  those  islands,  but  particularly  of 
Cuba.  Its  geographical  position,  which  places  it  almost  in 
sight  of  our  southern  shores,  and  as  it  were,  gives  it  the 
command  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  West  Indian  Seas, 
its  safe  and  capacious  harbors,  its  rich  productions,  the 
exchange  of  which  for  our  surplus  agricultural  products  and 
manufactures  constitutes  one  of  the  most  extensive  and  val 
uable  branches  of  our  foreign  trade,  render  it  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  the  United  States  that  no  change  should  take 
place  in  its  condition  which  might  injuriously  affect  our 
political  and  commercial  standing  in  that  quarter." 

Daniel  Webster,  under  date  of  January  14,  1843,  sa^: — 

"Intrenched  at  Havana  and  San  Antonio,  ports  as 
impregnable  as  the  rock  of  Gibraltar  (Great  Britain),  she 
will  be  able  to  close  the  two  entrances  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  even  to  prevent  the  free  passage  of  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  over  the  Bahama  Banks  and  through  the 
Florida  Channel.  *  *  *  Spain  has  repeatedly  been  told 
that  the  United  States  never  would  permit  the  occupation  of 
that  island  by  British  agents  or  forces  upon  any  pretext 
whatever. ' ' 

Mr.  Forsythe,  Secretary  of  State,  under  date  of  July  15, 
1840,  said: — 

' '  The  United  States  will  resist  at  every  hazard  any  attempt 
of  any  foreign  power  to  wrest  Cuba  from  Spain." 

Mr.  Buchanan,  Secretary  of  State,  under  date  of  June  13, 
1847,  said: — 

4  s  The  United  States  will  not  tolerate  any  invasions  of 

uba  by  citizens  of  neutral  States." 

Mr.  Daniel  Webster,  October  4,  1851,  said: — 


"  Mr.  J.  Quincy  Adams  often  said  that,  if  necessary,  we 
ought  to  make  war  with  England  sooner  than  to  acquiesce 
in  her  acquisition  of  Cuba.  It  is,  indeed,  obvious  enough 
what  danger  there  would  be  to  us  if  a  great  naval  power 
were  to  possess  this  key  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the 
Carribean  Sea." 

Mr.  Crittenden,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  under  date  of 
October  22,  1851,  said:  — 

"The  geographical  position  of  the  Island  of  Cuba,  in  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  lying  at  no  great  distance  from  the  mouth 
of  the  River  Mississippi,  and  in  the  line  of  the  greatest  cur 
rent  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  would  become, 
in  the  hands  of  any  powerful  European  nation,  an  object  of 
just  jealousy  and  apprehension  to  the  people  of  this  country. 
A  due  regard  for  their  own  safety  and  interest  must,  there 
fore,  make  it  a  matter  of  importance  to  them  who  shall 
possess  and  hold  dominion  over  that  island.  The  Govern 
ment  of  France  and  those  of  other  European  nations  were 
long  since  officially  apprized  by  this  Government  that  the 
United  States  could  not  see  without  concern  that  island 
transferred  by  Spain  to  any  other  European  State." 

Mr.    Everett,    Secretary   of    State,    December  i,    1852, 
said: — 

' '  The  Island  of  Cuba  lies  at  our  doors.  It  commands  the 
approach  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  which  washes  the  shores  of 
five  of  our  States.  It  bars  the  entrance  of  that  great  river 
which  drains  half  the  North  American  Continent,  and,  with 
its  tributaries,  forms  the  largest  system  of  internal  water 
communication  in  the  world.  It  keeps  watch  at  the  door 
way  of  our  intercourse  with  California  by  the  Isthmus  route. 
If  an  island  like  Cuba,  belonging  to  the  Spanish  Crown, 
guarded  the  entrance  to  the  Thames  and  the  Seine,  and  the 


United  States  should  propose  a  convention  like  this  to 
France  and  England,  those  powers  would  assuredly  feel  that 
the  disability  assumed  by  ourselves  was  far  less  serious  than 
that  which  we  asked  them  to  assume." 

Mr.  Marcy,  Secretary  of  State,  July  2,  1853,  referring  to 
the  proposition  of  France  and  Great  Britain  to  intervene  in 
the  affairs  of  Cuba,  addressed  Mr.  Reeves,  Minister  to 
France,  calling  attention  to  the  proposition  of  France  and 
England  to  enter  into  a  tripartite  convention  with  this  coun 
try,  guaranteeing  Spanish  dominion  over  Cuba,  said: — 

"  For  many  reasons  the  United  States  feel  deeply  inter 
ested  in  the  destiny  of  Cuba.  They  will  never  consent  to  its 
transfer  to  either  of  the  intervening  nations  or  to  any  foreign 
State." 

Referring  to  the  same  subject,  Mr.  Marcy  addressed  Mr. 
Soule,  under  date  of  July  23,  1853,  and  said: — 

' 'While  the  United  States  would  resist  at  every  hazard 
the  transference  of  Cuba  to  any  European  nation,  they 
would  exceedingly  regret  to  see  Spain  resorting  to  any 
power  for  assistance  to  uphold  her  rule  over  it.  Such  a 
dependence  on  foreign  aid  would,  in  effect,  invest  the  auxil 
iary  with  the  character  of  a  protector,  and  give  it  a  pretext 
to  interfere  in  our  affairs  and  also  generally  in  those  of  the 
North  American  Continent." 

These  quotations  bring  the  record  of  opinion  entertained 
by  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  various  periods,  to  which 
their  dates  relate,  to  1854,  the  year  in  which  the  Ostend 
Manifesto  was  promulgated.  A  due  regard  for  the  high 
significance  of  this  important  link  in  the  history  of  American 
diplomacy  concerning  Cuba,  and  the  influence  it  has  exerted 
upon  subsequent  history,  demand  somewhat  greater  elabo 
ration. 

16 


In  the  expression  of  opinion  by  statesmen,  party  plat 
forms,  and  messages  of  Presidents,  there  has  been  an 
accompanying  thread  of  mild,  self-accusing  protest  against 
the  charge  of  desiring  to  acquire  the  Island  of  Cuba.  The 
strength  of  the  utterances  on  the  one  hand  and  the  feeble 
ness  of  this  protest  on  the  other  bear  testimony  to  the  deter 
mined  sincerity  of  one  and  the  diplomatic  prudence  of  the 
other.  France  and  England  jointly  determined  to  test 
American  sincerity  upon  this  point.  Accordingly,  in  1852, 
France  and  England  proposed  a  treaty  with  the  United 
States,  guaranteeing  in  perpetuity  the  sovereignty  of  Spain 
over  the  island.  The  body  of  the  convention  proposed  to 
us  by  Great  Britain  and  France  was  as  follows: — 

"The  high  contracting  parties  hereby  severally  and  col 
lectively  disclaim,  both  now  and  for  hereafter,  all  intention 
to  obtain  possession  of  the  Island  of  Cuba,  and  they  respect 
ively  bind  themselves  to  discountenance  all  attempts  to  that 
effect  on  the  part  of  any  power  or  individual  whatever.  The 
high  contracting  parties  declare  that  they  will  not  obtain  or 
maintain  for  themselves,  or  for  any  one  of  themselves,  any 
exclusive  control  over  said  island,  nor  assume  nor  exercise 
any  dominion  over  the  same." 

Mr.  Everett,  as  Secretary  of  State  for  Mr.  Fillmore, 
rejected  the  overtures.  Mr.  Greeley,  in  his  ' '  Review  of 
the  American  Conflict,"  says  that  Mr.  Everett  answered 
this  in  a  smart  dispatch,  disclaiming,  pro  forma,  any  desire 
or  intention  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  acquire 
Cuba,  but  that  the  dispatch  itself  afforded  the  strongest 
evidence  of  a  contrary  disposition.  Mr.  Everett  assumed 
from  the  outset  that  the  Senate  would  inevitably  refuse  its 
consent  to  the  treaty  proposed,  and  adds: — 

17 


"  Its  certain  rejection  by  that  body  would  leave  the 
question  of  Cuba  in  a  more  unsettled  condition  than  it  is 
now." 

Mr.  Everett  further  said: — 

"The  President  does  not  covet  the  acquisition  of  Cuba 
for  the  United  States.  At  the  same  time  he  considers  the 
acquisition  of  Cuba  as  mainly  an  American  question.  The 
proposed  convention  proceeds  on  a  different  principle.  It 
assumes  that  the  United  States  have  no  other  or  greater 
interest  in  the  question  than  France  or  England;  whereas, 
it  is  necessary  only  to  cast  one's  eye  on  the  map  to  see  how 
remote  are  the  relations  of  Europe,  and  how  intimate  those 
of  the  United  States,  with  this  island." 

It  is  obvious  from  this  that  Mr.  Everett  stood  in  line  with 
the  other  great  statesmen  quoted  in  entertaining  the  opinion 
that  the  Island  of  Cuba  was  a  territorial  integer  of  the 
United  States. 

In  1848,  during  the  administration  of  President  James 
K.  Polk,  an  offer  of  $100,000,000  was  made  for  the  island 
by  the  United  States,  but  was  spurned  by  the  Spanish 
monarchy  as  "  a  national  indignity.' '  This  offer  had  not 
been  withdrawn  when,  in  1854,  President  Pierce  requested 
the  American  Ministers  to  France,  England,  and  Spain  "to 
meet  and  compare  opinions  and  to  adopt  measures  for  per 
fect  concert  of  action  in  aid  of  the  negotiations  at  Madrid." 
The  commission  was  composed  of  James  Buchanan,  Minister 
to  England,  J.  Y.  Mason,  Minister  to  France,  and  Pierre 
Soule,  Minister  to  Spain.  These  representatives  of  the 
United  States  met  in  conference,  first  at  Ostend,  in  Belgium, 
on  the  gth,  loth,  and  nth  of  October,  and  later  at  Aix  la 
Chapelle,  in  Prussia,  on  the  I2th  and  to  the  i8th  of  Octo- 


ber,  1854,  the  date  of  the  Manifesto.  Their  conclusions 
were  arranged  under  two  heads: — 

1.  "The  United  States  ought,    if  practicable,   to  pur 
chase  Cuba  with  as  little  delay  as  possible." 

2.  "  The  probability  is  great  that  the  government  and 
cortes  of  Spain  will  prove  willing  to  sell  it,   because  this 
would  essentially  promote  the  highest  and  best  interests  of 
the  Spanish  people." 

The  Manifesto  then  proceeds  to  traverse  the  entire  ques- 
ion  of  the  relation  of  Cuba  to  the  United  States;  its 
geographical,  commercial,  and  political  importance  to  the 
United  States,  but  declared  in  unmistakable  terms,  as  fol 
lows: — 

"  Indeed  the  Union  can  never  enjoy  repose,  nor  possess 
reliable  security,  as  long  as  Cuba  is  not  embraced  within  its 
boundaries.  *  *  Cuba  has  thus  become  to  us 

an  unceasing  danger  and  a  permanent  cause  of  anxiety  and 
alarm." 

The  Manifesto  then  proceeds  to  argue  the  case  on  behalf 
of  Spain,  and  insists  that  the  large  sum  of  money  the 
United  States  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  Cuba  would 
greatly  enhance  the  prosperity  of  Spain.  It  was  suggested 
that  France  had  constructed  continuous  lines  of  railways 
from  Havre,  Marseilles,  Valenciennes,  and  Strasbourg,  via 
Paris  to  the  Spanish  frontier,  and  that  Spain  would  do  well 
to  take  the  money  offered  by  the  United  States  to  continue 
these  roads  through  to  Madrid,  Seville,  Cadiz,  Malaga,  and 
the  frontiers  of  Portugal. 

It  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  wretched  financial 
condition  of  Spain  quoted  her  bonds  upon  her  own  bourse 
at  only  one  third  of  their  par  value;  that  Cuba  had  been  an 

19 


expense  and  not  a  profit  to  the  mother  country.  It 
indulged  in  prophecy  which  to-day  is  finding  fulfillment.  It 
said: — 

"It  is  certain  that  should  the  Cubans  themselves  organ 
ize  an  insurrection  against  the  Spanish  Government  and 
should  other  independent  nations  come  to  the  aid  of  Spain 
in  the  contest,  no  human  power  could,  in  our  opinion,  pre 
vent  the  people  and  government  of  the  United  States  from 
taking  part  in  such  a  civil  war  in  support  of  their  neighbors 
and  friends." 

But  the  most  striking  feature  of  this  Manifesto  remains  to 
be  noted.  It  is  perhaps  by  far  the  most  open,  candid,  dip 
lomatic  declaration  in  all  the  literature  of  diplomacy.  Its 
strong  declarations  follow: — 

il  But  if  Spain,  dead  to  the  voice  of  her  own  interest,  and 
actuated  by  stubborn  pride  and  a  false  sense  of  honor, 
should  refuse  to  sell  Cuba  to  the  United  States,  then  the 
question  will  arise,  What  ought  to  be  the  course  of  the 
American  Government  under  such  circumstances  ?  Self- 
preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature  with  States  as  well  as 
individuals.  All  nations  have,  at  different  periods,  acted 
upon  this  maxim.  Although  it  has  been  made  the  pretext 
for  committing  flagrant  injustice,  as  in  the  partition  of 
Poland  and  other  similar  cases  which  history  records,  yet 
the  principle  itself,  though  often  abused,  has  always  been 
recognized. 

"After  we  shall  have  offered  Spain  a  price  for  Cuba,  far 
beyond  its  present  value,  and  this  shall  have  been  refused, 
it  will  then  be  time  to  consider  the  question,  Does  Cuba,  in 
the  possession  of  Spain,  seriously  endanger  our  internal 
peace  and  the  existence  of  our  cherished  Union  ? 


"Should  this  question  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
then,  by  every  law,  human  and  divine,  we  shall  be  justified 
in  wresting  it  from  Spain  if  we  possess  the  power;  and  this, 
upon  the  very  same  principle  that  would  justify  an  individ 
ual  in  tearing  down  the  burning-  house  of  his  neighbor  if 
there  were  no  other  means  of  preventing  the  flames  from 
destroying  his  own  home." 

The  question  naturally  arises,  Did  these  statements 
appropriately  express  the  opinions  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  ?  The  appropriate  historical  setting  of  the 
Ostend  Manifesto  will  determine  this  question.  That  Man 
ifesto  was  the  answer  of  the  United  States  to  the  overtures 
of  England  and  France  for  a  tripartite  agreement,  guaran 
teeing  Spanish  sovereignty  in  perpetuity  over  the  Island  of 
Cuba.  It  had  been  declined  two  years  previously  by 
Edward  Everett,  Secretary  of  State,  with  the  bold  declara 
tion  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  never  con 
sent  to  become  a  party  to  such  a  treaty.  The  transcendent 
candor  of  these  statements  must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the 
circumstances  which  called  them  forth,  and  so  read,  they 
must  be  received  as  the  unmistabable,  though  not  directly 
authorized,  expression  of  American  opinion. 

But  the  political  history  of  the  country  affords  additional 
evidence  that  the  Ostend  Manifesto  voiced  the  opinions  of 
the  people  of  this  country.  James  Buchanan  was  the  author 
of  the  Manifesto.  Two  years  after  its  promulgation,  he  was 
nominated  for  President  on  a  platform  which  referred  to  our 
geographical  and  political  position  with  reference  to  the 
other  States  of  the  continent  and  to  the  great  necessity  for 
the  construction  of  a  canal  through  the  Isthmus  of  Darien; 
and  then  referring  to  Cuba  pledged  itself  to  a  policy  out 
lined  as  follows: — 


' '  That  the  Democratic  party  will  expect  of  the  next 
administration  that  every  proper  effort  be  made  to  assure 
our  ascendency  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  to  maintain  per 
manent  protection  to  the  great  outlets  through  which  are 
emptied  into  its  waters  products  raised  out  of  the  soil  and 
the  commodities  created  by  the  industry  of  the  people  of 
our  western  valleys  and  of  the  Union  at  large." 

The  opposing  Republican  platform  of  the  same  campaign 
placed  the  Cuban  question  and  the  Ostend  Manifesto  in  issue 
by  declaring: — 

"The  highwayman's  plea  that  'might  makes  right,' 
embodied  in  the  Ostend  circular,  was  in  every  respect  un 
worthy  of  American  diplomacy,  and  would  bring  shame 
and  dishonor  upon  any  government  or  people  that  gave  it 
their  sanction." 

With  the  issue  thus  joined  the  parties  went  to  the  country, 
and  the  hand  that  wrote  the  Ostend  Manifesto  was  placed 
at  the  helm  of  State.  When  James  Buchnan's  relations  with 
the  Ostend  Manifesto  and  the  platform  declarations  of  the 
two  parties  are  considered,  the  popular  majority  in  favor  of 
Buchanan  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  as  a 
national  approval  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Ostend  Manifesto. 

The  records  of  opinion  of  American  statesmen  in  line 
with  those  already  quoted  would  expand  into  a  volume. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  that  they  are  in  complete  alignment 
with  those  already  quoted.  Therefore,  but  one  further 
quotation  will  be  made  from  them.  A  period  distant  in 
point  of  time  will  be  selected. 

Hamilton  Fish,  Secretary  of  State  to  General  Grant,  on 
February  16,  1874,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Gushing,  Minister  to 
Spain,  said: — 


"  In  fine,  Cuba,  like  the  former  continental  colonies  of 
Spain  in  America,  ought  to  belong  to  the  great  family  of 
American  Republics,  with  political  forms  and  public  policy 
of  their  own,  and  attached  to  Europe  by  no  ties  save  those 
of  international  amity,  and  of  intellectual,  commercial,  and 
social  intercourse.  The  desire  of  independence  on  the  part 
of  the  Cubans  is  a  natural  and  legitimate  aspiration  of  theirs, 
because  they  are  Americans.  And  while  such  independence 
is  the  manifest  exigency  of  the  political  interests  of  the 
Cubans  themselves,  it  is  equally  so  that  the  rest  of  America, 
including  that  of  the  United  States." 

1 '  True  it  is  that  now,  when  war  has  been  waged  for  more 
than  five  years,  there  is  no  material  change  in  the  military 
situation.  The  Cubans  continue  to  occupy,  unsubdued,  the 
eastern  and  central  parts  of  the  island,  with  exception  of  the 
larger  cities  or  towns,  and  of  fortified  points  held  by  the 
Government,  but  their  capacity  of  resistance  appears  to  be 
undiminished,  and  with  no  abatement  of  their  resolution 
to  persevere  to  the  end  in  repelling  the  domination  of 

Spain." 

"You  will  understand,  therefore,  that  the  policy  of  the 
United  States  in  reference  to  Cuba  at  the  present  time  is 
one  of  expectancy,  but  with  positive  and  fixed  convictions 
as  to  the  duty  of  the  United  States  when  the  time  or  emer 
gency  of  action  shall  arrive." 

Passing  from  the  opinions  of  leading  statesmen,  brief 
extracts  from  the  messages  of  Presidents  of  the  United 
States,  referring  to  the  relations  between  Cuba  and  this 
country,  will  be  presented. 

In  his  first  annual  message,  December  2,  1817,  President 
Monroe,  referring  to  the  inability  of  Spain  to  govern  and 
control  her  colonies,  said: — 


"  Her  territory  ought  not  to  be  made  instrumental,  through 
her  inability  to  defend  it,  to  purposes  so  injurious  to  the 
United  States.  To  a  country  over  which  she  fails  to  main 
tain  her  authority,  and  which  she  permits  to  be  converted 
to  the  annoyance  of  her  neighbors,  her  jurisdiction  for  the 
time  necessarily  ceases  to  exist." 

This  quotation  from  President  Monroe  is  the  beginning 
of  a  line  of  declarations,  maintained  down  to  the  present 
time,  that  when  a  Government  claiming  sovereignty  over  a 
province,  district,  island,  or  colony,  fails  to  maintain  a 
stable  government  there,  its  authority  has,  in  fact,  ceased 
to  exist,  and  its  right  of  sovereignty  has  been  forfeited. 
This  declaration  finds  echo  in  the  message  of  President 
McKinley,  dated  April  n,  1898,  less  than  three  months 
since,  when,  referring  to  the  destruction  of  the  Maine,  he 
said: — 

"That  condition  is  shown  to  be  such  that  the  Spanish 
Government  cannot  insure  safety  and  security  to  a  vessel  of 
the  American  Navy  in  the  harbor  of  Havana  on  a  mission 
of  peace  and  rightfully  there." 

On  November  16,  1818,  in  his  second  annual  message, 
President  Monroe  said:  — 

"  Spain  is  not  maintaining  her  authority  in  Florida.  The 
country  is  becoming  the  theater  of  every  species  of  lawless 
adventure.  The  embarassments  of  Spain  have  prevented 
her  from  making  indemnity  to  our  citizens  for  their  losses 
by  spoilation  and  otherwise,  but  it  has  always  been  in  her 
power  to  provide  it  by  the  cession  of  the  territory." 

Proceeding  in  the  same  message,  President  Monroe 
says: — 

"  The  right  of  self-defense  ceases.     It  is  among  the  most 

24 


sacred,  and  alike  necessary  to  nations  and  to  individuals,  and 
whether  the  attack  be  made  by  Spain  herself,  or  by  those 
who  abuse  her  power,  its  obligation  is  not  the  less  strong." 
This  doctrine  of  the  right  of  self-defense  as  being  inherent 
in  nations  and  analogous  to  the  same  right  in  individuals, 
was  imported  by  unmistakable  declarations  into  the  Ostend 
Manifesto. 

In  his  eighth  annual  message,  dated  December  7,  1824, 
President  Monroe  calls  attention  to  the  piracy  in  Cuban 
waters,  criticises  the  relaxed  and  enfeebled  state  of  local 
government  in  Cuba,  and  submits  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  the  question  as  to  whether  the  local  authorities 
alone  may  be  held  accountable. 

April  27,  1825,  Henry  Clay,  Secretary  of  State  to  Presi 
dent  Adams  in  a  letter  to  the  American  Minister  to  Spain, 
declares  that  ' '  if  the  war  should  continue  between  Spain  and 
the  new  Spanish- American  Republics,  and  Cuba  and  Porto 
Rico  should  become  the  ob!ect  and  theater  of  it,  the  for 
tunes  of  these  islands  have  such  connection  with  the  people 
of  these  United  States  that  they  could  not  be  indifferent 
spectators,  and  that  contingencies  might  bring  upon  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  duties  and  obligations  the  per 
formance  of  which,  however  painful  they  should  be,  they 
might  not  be  at  liberty  to  decline." 

Between  the  date  of  the  messages  of  John  Quincy  Adams 
and  William  McKinley  there  is  a  concensus  of  expression, 
all  looking  to  the  same  direction,  to-wit:  Cuba  is  an  integral 
portion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States.  The  sover 
eignty  of  Spain  over  the  island  is  strained  and  unnatural. 
The  commercial,  industrial,  and  political  interests  of  the 
United  States  demand  that  the  unnatural  relation  should  be 
broken  and  that  the  natural  relation  should  be  assumed. 


Avoiding  comment  for  the  conservation  of  space,  a  few 
quotations,  having  general  applicability  to  matters  under  con 
sideration,  will  be  presented. 

President  Pierce,  in  his  first  annual  message,  December  5, 
1853,  referring  to  filibustering  expeditions  to  the  coast  of 
Spain,  said: — 

11  Independent  of  our  available  trade  with  Spain,  we  have 
important  political  relations  with  her  growing  out  of  our 
neighborhood  to  the  islands  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  Con 
sidering  the  proximity  of  that  island  to  our  shores,  lying,  as 
it  does,  in  the  track  of  trade  between  some  of  our  principal 
cities,  and  the  suspicious  vigilance  with  which  foreign  inter 
course,  particularly  that  with  the  United  States,  is  guarded, 
a  repetition  of  such  occurrence  may  well  be  apprehended. " 

The  territorial  expansion  of  the  United  States  was  dis 
cussed  and  commended  by  President  Pierce,  as  follows: — 

' '  The  United  States  have  continued  gradually  and  stead 
ily  to  expand  through  acquisitions  of  territory,  which,  how 
much  soever  some  of  them  may  have  been  questioned,  are 
now  universally  seen  and  admitted  to  have  been  wise  in 
policy,  just  in  character,  and  a  great  element  in  the  advance 
ment  of  our  country,  and,  with  it,  of  the  human  race,  in  free 
dom,  in  prosperity,  and  in  happiness." 

President  Pierce' s  message,  of  March  15,  1854,  refers  to 
the  seizure  of  the  "  Black  Warrior, "  and  declares,  concern 
ing  that  transaction,  that:  — 

"  It  presents  so  clear  a  case  of  wrong  that  it  would  be 
reasonable  to  expect  full  indemnity  therefor." 

' '  The  offending  party  is  at  our  doors  with  large  powets 
for  aggression,  but  none,  it  is  alleged,  for  reparation." 

In  the  same  message,  President  Pierce  declares: — 

26 


"  In  view  of  the  position  of  the  Island  of  Cuba,  its  prox 
imity  to  our  coast,  the  relations  which  it  must  ever  bear  to 
our  commercial  and  other  interests,  it  is  vain  to  expect  that 
a  series  of  unfriendly  acts,  infringing  our  commercial  rights 
and  the  adoption  of  a  policy  threatening  the  honor  and 
security  of  these  States  can  long  coexist  with  peaceful 
relations. ' ' 

The  relations  with  Spain  were  so  strained  at  this  date 
that  President  Pierce  suggested  to  Congress  the  propriety 
of  adopting  such  provisional  means  of  defense  for  any  exi 
gency  which  might  arise,  and  declared  that  he  would  not 
hesitate  to  use  the  authority  and  means  which  Congress 
might  grant  to  insure  the  prevalence  of  the  rights  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States." 

On  December  4,  1854,  President  Pierce,  in  a  message  to 
Congress,  referred  again  to  the  territorial  expansion  of  the 
United  States,  as  follows  :— 

"  Some  European  powers  have  regarded  with  disquieting 
concern  the  territorial  expansion  of  the  United  States.  This 
rapid  growth  has  resulted  from  the  legitimate  exercise  of 
sovereign  rights  belonging  alike  to  all  nations,  and  by  many 
liberally  exercised.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  could 
hardly  have  been  expected  that  those  among  them  which 
have  within  a  comparatively  recent  period  subdued  and 
absorbed  ancient  kingdoms,  planted  their  standards  on 
every  continent,  and  now  possess  or  claim  the  control  of  the 
islands  of  every  ocean  as  their  appropriate  domain,  would 
look  with  unfriendly  sentiment  upon  the  acquisitions  of  this 
country,  in  every  instance  honorably  obtained." 

On  December  6,    1858,   in  his  second  annual  message, 
President  Buchanan  said: — 


"Spanish  officials  under  the  direct  control  of  the  Cap 
tain-General  of  Cuba  have  insulted  our  national  flag  and  in 
repeated  instances  have,  from  time  to  time,  inflicted  injury 
on  the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens." 

Continuing,  the  President  said: — 

' '  It  has  been  made  known  to  the  world  by  my  predeces 
sors  that  the  United  States  have  on  several  occasions 
endeavored  to  acquire  Cuba  from  Spain  by  honorable 
negotiation.  If  this  were  accomplished,  the  last  relic  of 
the  African  slave  trade  would  instantly  disappear." 

President  Buchanan  referred  to  the  acquisition  of  terri 
tory  from  France,  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  further 
acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico  by  purchase,  and 
said: — 

"  This  course  we  shall  ever  pursue  unless  circumstances 
should  occur,  which  we  do  not  now  anticipate,  rendering  a 
departure  from  it  clearly  justifiable  under  the  imperative 
and  overruling  law  of  self-preservation." 

"Our  relations  with  Spain  which  ought  to  be  of  the  most 
friendly  character  must  always  be  placed  in  jeopardy  while 
the  existing  colonial  government  over  the  island  shall 
remain  in  its  present  condition." 

Abraham  Lincoln,  in  his  third  annual  message,  dated 
December  8,  1863,  said: — 

"An  important  question,  involving  the  extent  of  the 
maritime  jurisdiction  of  Spain  in  the  waters  which  surround 
the  Island  of  Cuba,  has  been  debated  without  reaching  an 
agreement,  and  it  is  proposed  in  an  amicable  spirit  to  refer 
it  to  the  arbitrament  of  a  friendly  power." 

Andrew  Johnson,  in  his  third  annual  message,  dated 
December  3,  1867,  said: — 

28 


' '  I  agree  with  our  early  statesmen  that  the  West  Indies 
naturally  gravitate  to,  and  may  be  expected  ultimately  to 
be  absorbed  by,  the  continental  States.  I  agree  with  them 
also  that  it  is  wise  to  leave  the  question  of  such  absorption 
to  this  process  of  natural  political  gravitation." 

Andrew  Johnson,  in  his  fourth  annual  message,  dated 
December  9,  1868,  said:  — 

"A  comprehensive  national  policy  would  seem  to  sanc 
tion  the  acquisition  and  incorporation  into  our  federal 
union  of  the  several  adjacent  continental  and  insular  com 
munities  as  speedily  as  it  can  be  done,  peacefully,  lawfully, 
and  without  any  violation  of  national  justice,  faith,  or 
honor.  Foreign  possession  or  control  of  those  communi 
ties  has  heretofore  hindered  the  growth  and  impaired  the 
influence  of  the  United  States." 

President  U.  S.  Grant,  in  his  first  annual  message,  dated 
December  6,  1869,  said:— 

"  The  United  States  have  no  disposition  to  interfere  with 
the  existing  relations  of  Spain  to  her  colonial  possessions 
on  this  continent.  They  believe  that  in  due  time  Spain  and 
other  European  powers  will  find  their  interests  in  terminat 
ing  those  relations  and  establishing  their  present  dependen 
cies  as  independent  powers." 

President  Grant's  special  message  of  May  21,  1871,  sub 
mitted  for  ratification  an  additional  article  to  the  treaty  of 
November  29,  1870,  concerning  the  annexation  of  the  San 
Domingo  Republic,  and  presents  the  standard  arguments, 
depended  upon  by  all  statesmen  and  used  by  all  Presidents 
in  their  messages,  in  favor  of  acquiring  a  strong  position  in 
the  West  Indies  in  the  interest  of  the  construction  of  the 
Nicaragua  Canal  and  American  commerce  in  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico. 


President  Grant's  fifth  annual  message  of  December  i, 
1873,  gives  the  history  of  the  seizure  of  the  ' '  Virginius. " 

"  On  October  3ist,  and  while  sailing  under  the  flag  of  the 
United  States,  on  the  high  seas,  she  was  forcibly  seized  by 
the  Spanish  gunboat  "Tornado"  and  carried  to  the  port 
of  Santiago,  where  fifty-three  of  her  passengers  and  crew 
were  inhumanly  and  without  due  process  of  law  put  to 
death." 

1  '  Pending  negotiations  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Government  oi  Spain  on  the  subject  of  this  capture,  I  have 
authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  put  our  navy  on  a 
war  footing. ' ' 

In  his  sixth  annual  message,  dated  December  7,  '74, 
President  Grant  referred  to  the  deplorable  strife  in  Cuba, 
continued  without  any  marked  change,  and  said: — 

' '  Six  years  of  strife  give  to  the  insurrection  a  significance 
which  cannot  be  denied.  Its  duration  and  the  tenacity  of 
its  adherence,  together  with  the  absence  of  manifested 
power  of  suppression  on  the  part  of  Spain,  cannot  be  con 
troverted,  and  may  make  some  positive  steps  on  the  part  of 
other  powers  a  matter  of  self-necessity/' 

President  Grant's  seventh  annual  message  of  December 
7,  1875,  calls  attention  to  the  disregard  of  the  laws  of  civil 
ized  warfare  on  the  part  of  Spain  in  her  attempt  to  subdue 
the  insurgents,  and  continued:— 

"Desolation,  ruin,  and  pillage  are  pervading  the  rich 
fields  of  one  of  the  most  fertile  and  productive  regions  of 
the  earth,  and  the  incendiary  torch,  firing  plantations  and 
valuable  factories  and  buildings,  is  the  agent  making  the 
alternate  advance  or  retreat  of  contending  parties." 

30 


He  declared  that: — 

"  This  protracted  conflict  seriously  affects  the  interests  of 
all  commercial  nations,  and  those  of  the  United  States  more 
than  others." 

President  Hayes,  in  his  fourth  annual  message,  dated 
December  6,  1880,  reports  to  Congress  the  fact  that  during 
the  summer  several  American  merchant  vessels,  sailing  in 
neutral  waters  of  the  West  Indies,  had  been  fired  at,  bom 
barded,  and  searched  by  a  Spanish  armed  cruiser,  and 
said : — 

' '  The  circumstances  as  reported  involve  not  only  a  pri 
vate  injury  to  the  persons  concerned,  but  also  seemed  too 
little  observant  of  the  friendly  relations  existing  for  a  cen 
tury  between  this  country  and  Spain." 

Omitting  further  extracts  from  these  messages,  let  the  plat 
form  expressions   of   the   great   national   parties   be  con 
sidered.    The  declaration  of  the  platform  of  the  Democratic 
national  party  in  1856  has  already  been  quoted;  also  that 
of  the  Republican  platform  of  the  same  year  and  campaign. 
In  1860,  the  Douglas  Democratic  Convention  declared:— 
' '  The  Democratic  party  are  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of 
the  Island  of  Cuba  on  such  terms  as  shall  be  honorable  to 
ourselves  and  just  to  Spain." 

In  the  same  year  the  Breckinridge  Democratic  Conven 
tion  declared  that: — 

"The  Democratic  party  are  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of 
the  Island  of  Cuba,  on  such  terms  as  shall  be  honorable  to 
ourselves  and  just  to  Spain,  at  the  earliest  practicable 
moment." 

In  1864,  the   Republican  Convention,  which  nominated 


Lincoln   and  Johnson   for    President  and   Vice- President, 
declared  that:— 

1 '  We  approve  the  position  taken  by  the  Government  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States  can  never  regard  with 
indifference  the  attempt  of  any  European  power  to  over 
throw  by  force,  or  to  supplant  by  fraud,  the  institutions  of 
any  republican  government  on  the  western  continent,  and 
that  they  will  view  with  extreme  jealousy  as  menacing  to 
the  peace  and  independence  of  their  own  country  the 
efforts  of  any  such  power  to  obtain  new  footholds  for  mon 
archical  governments,  sustained  by  a  foreign  military  force 
in  near  proximity  to  the  United  States." 

In  1884,  the  National  Democratic  Convention  which 
nominated  Cleveland  and  Hendricks,  declared: — 

' '  This  country  has  never  had  a  well  denned  and  executed 
foreign  policy,  save  under  the  Democratic  administration. 
That  policy  has  ever  been  in  regard  to  foreign  nations,  so 
long  as  they  do  not  act  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
country  or  hurtful  to  our  citizens,  to  let  them  alone;  that  as 
a  result  of  this  policy  we  recall  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana, 
Florida,  California,  and  of  the  adjacent  Mexican  territory 
by  purchase  alone,  and  contrast  these  grand  acquisitions  of 
Democratic  statesmanship  with  the  purchase  of  Alaska,  the 
sole  fruit  of  Republican  administration  for  nearly  a  quarter 
of  a  century." 

This  is  a  declaration  that  the  right  of  territorial  expansion 
is  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  American  people,  and  the 
indictment  is  brought  against  the  Republican  party  that 
during  an  administration  of  twenty-five  years  it  had  annexed 
only  about  1,500,000  square  miles  of  territory  to  the 
national  domain. 


In  1888,  the  Republican  Convention  which  nominated 
Harrison  and  Morton,  declared: — 

"  The  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  by  the  present  adminis 
tration  has  been  distinguished  by  its  inefficiency  and  cow 
ardice.  Having  withdrawn  from  the  Senate  all  pending 
treaties  effected  by  Republican  administrations  for  the 
removal  of  foreign  burdens  and  restrictions  upon  our  com 
merce  and  for  its  extension  into  better  markets,  it  has 
neither  effected  nor  proposed  any  others  in  their  stead. 
Professing  adherence  to  the  Monroe  doctrine,  it  has  seen 
with  idle  complacency  the  extension  of  foreign  influence  in 
Central  America  and  of  foreign  trade  everywhere  among 
our  neighbors." 

The  Republican  Convention  of  1892  declared: — 
"  We  reaffirm  our  approval  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  and 
believe  in  the  achievement  of  the  manifest   destiny  of  the 
Republic  in  its  broadest  sense.'' 

Reaching  current  history,  we  find  the  Democratic,  Free 
Silver  National  Convention,  held  in  Chicago,  July  9,  1896, 
declaring: — 

' '  We  extend  our  sympathy  to  the  people  of  Cuba  in 
their  heroic  struggle  for  liberty  and  independence." 

In  the  same  year  the  National  Republican  Convention, 
held  at  St.  Louis,  declared: — 

"  From  the  hour  of  achieving  their  own  independence 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have  regarded  with 
sympathy  the  struggle  of  other  American  people  to  free 
themselves  from  European  dominion.  We  watch  with  deep 
and  abiding  interest  the  heroic  battle  of  the  Cuban  patriots 
against  cruelty  and  oppression,  and  our  best  hopes  go  out 
for  the  full  success  of  their  determined  contest  for  liberty." 


33 


"  The  Government  of  Spain  having  lost  control  of  Cuba, 
and  being  unable  to  protect  the  property  or  lives  of  resi 
dent  American  citizens,  or  to  comply  with  its  treaty  obliga 
tions,  we  believe  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  actively  use  its  influence  and  good  offices  to  restore 
peace  and  give  independence  to  the  island." 

In  the  same  year  the  People's  party  adopted  a  platform 
at  St.  Louis,  from  which  the  following  extract  is  taken: — 

"  We  tender  to  the  patriotic  people  of  Cuba  our  deepest 
sympathy  in  their  heroic  struggle  for  political  freedom  and 
independence,  and  we  believe  the  time  has  come  when  the 
United  States,  the  great  Republic  of  the  world,  should 
recognize  that  Cuba  is,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  a  free  and 
independent  State." 

The  words  of  the  People's  party  platform  were  incorpor 
ated  in  the  Declarations  of  War,  and  thus  a  platform 
declaration  became  the  basis  of  national  action. 

At  last  the  Cuban  question  assumed  a  moral  aspect. 
When  a  national  question  becomes  a  moral  issue,  its  solu 
tion  cannot  be  postponed.  For  more  than  one  hundred 
years  the  relations  of  Spain  with  her  American  colonies  has 
demonstrated  her  inability  to  maintain  government  over 
them.  According  to  the  doctrine  enunciated  by  the  greatest 
and  wisest  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  that  when  a 
nation  is  not  strong  enough  to  maintain  her  sovereignty 
over  distant  territorial  possessions,  that  sovereignty  ceases, 
and  the  independence  of  the  people  over  whom  that  sover 
eignty  is  sought  to  be  extended  is  established,  and  such 
people  are  and  of  right  ought  to  be  free. 

Spain  has  adopted  measures  for  the  suppression  of  a 
rebellion  in  Cuba  which  has  existed  for  a  period  of  more 


than   fifty   years.      Of  that  method,   the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  said : — 

' '  The  only  peace  it  could  beget  was  that  of  the  wilderness 
and  the  grave." 

As  if  conscious  that  the  government  and  authority  which 
she  was  feebly  endeavoring  to  maintain  over  distant  insular 
possessions  were  in  their  expiring  throes,  Spain  resorted  to 
a  policy  the  most  barbarous  and  cruel  in  all  the  annals  of  a 
history,  every  page  of  which  is  dark  with  the  record  of 
tyranny  and  cruelty.  If  she  could  not  govern,  she  could  at 
least  destroy.  The  condition  was  intolerable.  Every 
humane  instinct  of  the  nation  was  aroused.  The  logical 
decree  of  all  our  history  was  about  to  be  invoked,  and 
on  April  23,  1898,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
declared: — 

' '  That  the  people  of  the  island  are  and  of  right  ought  to 
be  free  and  independent. 

"  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  demand,  and 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  does  hereby  demand, 
that  the  Government  of  Spain  at  once  relinquish  its  authority 
and  government  in  the  Island  of  Cuba,  and  withdraw  its  land 
and  naval  forces  from  Cuba  and  Cuban  waters. 

' '  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he 
hereby  is,  directed  to  use  the  entire  land  and  naval  forces  of 
the  United  States  and  to  call  into  actual  service  of  the  United 
States  the  militia  of  the  several  States  to  the  extent  as  may 
be  necessary  to  carry  these  resolutions  into  effect." 

And,  on  April  25th,  Congress  declared  that  "War  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  declared  to  exist,  and  that  war  has  existed 
since  the  2ist  of  April,  1898." 

Thus  was  ushered  in  the  current  historical  era.     It  has 


35 


brought  us  to  a  time  which  is  the  legitimate  birth  of  all 
former  time. 

The  war  with  Spain  crystallizes  into  action  the  declaration 
emanating  from  the  statesmen  of  all  periods  of  our  history; 
from  the  messages  of  Presidents  to  the  Congress  of  the 
nation;  from  the  platform  declarations  of  the  great  national 
parties;  from  acts  of  Congress,  and  interpreted  by  accom 
plished  facts  of  history,  unmistakably  discloses  the  purpose 
of  the  nation.  The  evolutionary  force  to  which  the  trend 
of  our  history  has  responded,  and  must  respond,  is  the 
racial  aspiration  to  be  a  great  nation,  in  all  the  attributes  of 
greatness.  In  obedience  to  this  force,  we  have  declared  the 
right  and  exercised  the  power  of  acquisition  of  territory 
allied  to  us  by  commercial  affinity  and  by  geographical 
position  necessary  to  the  national  defense  and  to  our  growth 
and  expansion.  We  have  in  all  time  maintained  that  by 
virtue  of  her  geographical  position,  the  incorporation  of  Cuba 
into  our  territorial  system  was  natural  and  right,  and  even 
indispensable  to  our  safety. 

Any  sovereignty  other  than  that  of  the  United  States, 
whether  claimed  and  exercised  by  an  Old  World  monarchy 
or  established  by  the  people  of  the  island  themselves,  will  in 
all  essentials  be  at  issue  with  the  inherent  evolutionary  force 
of  our  development,  and  if  national  opinion,  of  which  there 
is  ample  record,  may  be  trusted,  a  foe  to  our  safety  and  an 
obstacle  to  our  progress. 

The  independence  of  Cuba  is,  therefore,  an  historical 
absurdity.  The  irritating  jealousy  concerning  her  relations 
with  other  powers  will,  from  the  first,  force  her  into  the  debas 
ing  expediency  and  enfeebled  vassalage  of  an  American  pro 
tectorate,  a  relation  prolific  of  international  complications, 
and  attended  with  the  perpetual  menace  of  foreign  war.  The 

36 


independence  of  Cuba  may  be  a  step  in  the  direction  of 
incorporating  her  into  our  industrial,  commercial,  and 
political  system;  but  nothing  short  of  her  complete  incor 
poration  into  our  territorial  system  will  allay  the  menace  of 
her  geographical  position,  or  remove  the  obstacle  her  aliena 
tion  opposes  to  the  defense  of  our  country  and  to  our  national 
expansion  and  commerce. 

In  the  current  war  we  are  witnessing  the  drama  of  history 
and  the  tragedy  of  progress.  "  Individual  wrongs  become 
historic  rights,"  and  we  will  retain  sovereignty  over  every 
foot  of  territory  conquered  by  our  army.  This  is  decreed 
by  the  trend  of  all  our  history.  Hereafter  this  great 
Republic  is  to  be  a  factor  in  the  meaningful  movements 
of  nations.  The  purpose  of  the  nation  cannot  be  in 
terpreted  by  the  vanity  of  oratory,  the  hypocrisy  of 
eloquence,  or  the  bigotry  of  mere  sentimental  patriot 
ism;  elemental  forces  over  which  man  does  not  appear  to 
exercise  control,  are  broadening  and  deepening  the  current 
of  national  life  as  the  channels  of  rivers  are  broadened  in 
their  onward  flow.  And  when  the  fruits  of  victory,  ennobling 
the  sacrifice  of  blood  and  compensating  the  tears  of  sorrow, 
shall  lay  at  the  feet  of  liberty  new  empires  and  crown  our 
country  with  a  higher  mission  and  a  broader  responsibility 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  purpose  of  the  nation 
will  stand  revealed  in  the  possession  of  nobler  aspirations, 
augmented  possibilities,  and  the  achievement  of  a  higher 
place  in  the  upward  and  onward  pathway  of  destiny. 


57 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO—*      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


GAYLAMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Manufactured  by 

GAYLORD  BROS.  Inr 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Stockton,  Calif. 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


coaassiss? 


YC  51433 


M511587 


£?• 


